(PC) Arrant v. Santoro et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 44 Request to Communicate with Defense Counsel by Mail Only signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/19/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO
COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL
BY MAIL ONLY
(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Defendant’s counsel

21

to communicate with him by mail only. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff contends that communicating with

22

defense counsel by telephone in front of officers violates his right to privacy and triggers his post

23

traumatic stress disorder. (Id.)

24

Plaintiff is informed that the attorney-client privilege is not necessarily implicated in his

25

communications with attorneys who do not represent him. See, e.g, Giba v. Cook, 232 F.Supp.2d

26

1171, 1187 (D. Or. 2002). Nor does Plaintiff's right of self-representation transform his legal

27

materials into confidential attorney work product or provide him routine access to confidential

28

telephone calls. In addition to the requirement that Plaintiff establish a resulting injury, a prisoner's
1

1

right of access to the courts must be balanced with a prison's “penological interest in curtailing the

2

prisoner's privacy rights. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) (inmates have no

3

expectation of privacy in their living quarters); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979) (prisoner's

4

privacy rights curtailed by prison's security interests).” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133 (9th

5

Cir.2001). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he has been denied access to the court by any telephone

6

communication with defense. The mere fact that Plaintiff prefers to communicate with defense

7

counsel by mail does not warrant a court order mandating communication in such form. Accordingly,

8

Plaintiff’s request to communication with defense counsel by telephone only is denied.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

November 19, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2